March 13. This past Friday night, I was
faced with a somewhat difficult choice – go help the people of the New SPACE
with their/our table at the Left Forum, or go to an open ICC Meeting in
Brooklyn instead. A couple of weeks ago…I said that I would not be able to do
the latter. But as it turns out, after giving it some thought…I went to the ICC
meeting after all. And I am glad that I made that choice – I think the ICC
meeting provided a lot more good information, and was overall a far more
interesting (and intellectually intense) experience, than I would have been
likely to get attending those sessions of academic-leftist schmoozing,
networking, and/or star-gazing that comprise the Left Forum…
…The specific subject of this meeting was the Meaning of the New York City
transit strike. This extended into some lively discussion about unions in
general, the increase of workers’ solidarity (especially separate from, or one
might say in spite of, the official dealings of the trade unions), and the
possiblities for workers to further build “consciousness” at a time when the
true nature of capitalism is becoming more blatant and brutal as capital tries
to defend itself against increasing crises (which the ICC maintains are
actually part of capitalism’s decline)...

At a later point, we discussed the
issue of what kinds of workers’ groups might best contribute to future radical
or revolutionary struggle, and I was pleased to hear my ICC comrades say that
real revolutionary groups or organizations would probably have to be temporary
entities specifically springing up to meet a high moment of struggle or
revolutionary challenge. They would not be permanently established worker’s
groups, such as “anarchist unions,” which almost always end up falling into the
same role as trade unions, especially during times when the struggle has
subsided, functioning in ways that at best compromise (if not work directly
against) their supposed revolutionary purpose. (This, by the way, is not a
quote, but my own summary of the dialogue. Maybe the ICC can say this
better/more forcefully.) I might add that this is the sort of viewpoint that I
have been leaning toward more myself, after trying for some time to work with
the idea of traditional revolutionary syndicalism - especially
anarchosyndicalism - which I have found less and less convincing in recent years.These syndicalist unions are certainly
preferable, at least in principle, to trade unions, but I’ve arrived at the
opinion that neither form of established workers’ union will ever provide a
good means by itself to radically challenge the system, especially not in the
present age.

Toward the close of the meeting, I asked a little about the idea of capitalist
decadence. This is the idea that capitalism is not simply going through one
crisis in a never-ending series of crises but is actually in long-term decline
as a result of certain built-in contradictions in the system that were
discussed by Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, etc. This idea was raised in the ICC’s
formal presentation during the meeting, because it is a significant part of
their critique, along with their idea of a newer phase of capitalist
decomposition, which is a later and even more critical stage in capitalism’s
decline.

I wondered whether the ICC sees the
decomposition of capitalism as following a sort of timeline, and whether they
shared the idea with some proponents of decadence theory that there will be a
specific moment of final collapse which revolutionaries should be preparing
for. (I believe that Loren Goldner subscribes to this idea to some extent,
focusing especially on the impending crises from the unprecedented explosion in
dependence on fictitious capital and world debt.) And, as I’d correctly
surmised, the ICC isn’t about to specify a deadline or moment of ultimate
collapse but does see the danger of a sort of timeline running out, due to the
present condition of capitalist decomposition, if there is no genuine socialist
revolution – the danger being that, as mentioned by Rosa Luxemburg (which was
based on something said earlier by Engels), without achieving socialism, we
will enter a state of total barbarism.As I told the ICC, I find the notion of
capitalist decadence, as well as decomposition, to be very intriguing, but I
can’t say that I’m 100 percent behind it yet. Certainly, I see signs of
deterioration and regression everywhere as well as impending crises…. There is
a passage in Chapter 15 of Marx’s Grundrisse which the ICC cites as a major
source for this theory of decadence…. However, I have spoken to other people,
who are far more versed in Marxian theory than I am, who say that they wouldn’t
interpret that passage in the same way at all. Personally, the idea of
capitalist decadence and decomposition is something that I am very enticed to
believe, but I also know that an idea like this can be dangerously comforting
to those of us who are yearning to see some sort of end to the awful story that
capitalism has been creating over the past several centuries. So, though this
might seem a bit too wishy-washing/wavering, I’m not going to close myself off
to the other side of the debate completely right now.

I do look forward to going to more ICC meetings, where I can participate in
more fascinating discussions, learning and sharing revolutionary ideas. //
posted by RS